Smaller LCD + Good video card or Larger LCD + Decent video card

[asdftt123]

I'm trying to decide between the following two setups:



20 or 22" LCD @ 1680x1050 Native resolution + 8800GTX

or

24" LCD @ 1920x1200 Native resolution + X1950XT 256MB (or equivalent)



These two setups will cost be about the same (give or take a bit).
Either way, I plan on upgrading to a next generation video card in
2008, either Nvidia or ATI. Obviously, I won't be able to do as much
gaming with the 24" LCD in the meantime, but would getting a 24" and
*settling* for a less powerful video card be worth it? There is
definitely an obvious price difference between the 22" and 24"
displays. As for 24", I have my eyes on the LG L245WP-BN Black 24" 8ms
on Newegg. As for 20" or 22", I really have no clue. :/ Could someone
give me some input or perhaps another setup suggestion? I don't plan to
use this rig just for gaming, but I plan to do a lot of multitasking
and this computer is *hopefully* going to be mainly for school work. The rest of my build will consist of X38 (DDR2 edition), Q6600, and 4GB DDR2 800. Thanks!

 

[Maziar]

Option 1 , 8800gtx is a lot better than x1950xt , (at least for me i rather have a high end card with lower resolution rather than a weaker card with higher resolution ) , ACER and Samsung and also LG are good brands ,

 

[FarAway Builder]

The 22" LCDs don't have nearly as rich color options--have to rely on dithering to generate a lot of their colors. One reason they're so cheap is because many of them don't use the same quality panels as the higher-quality 20" LCD displays. (I'm a noob in the space, so I forget the acronyms and I'm too lazy to look them up, but I've been researching this same question!)

As is the case with so much of the "monitor enthusiast" spectrum, many of the differences aren't visible to every human's naked eye, so eyeballing a few of them in a Best Buy or such might help out.

I'd be curious to hear what more learned sources than I say here. I'm considering the same question, but with a 320 MB 8800 GTS in place of the X1950.

 

[geofelt]

A good monitor is one of the few future proof purchases in computing. The vga cards get obsolete every couple of years. Get the best monitor you can afford. A 8800gts can power two 24" monitors or larger without a problem.

 

[javimars]

I'm trying to decide between the following two setups:



20 or 22" LCD @ 1680x1050 Native resolution + 8800GTX

or

24" LCD @ 1920x1200 Native resolution + X1950XT 256MB (or equivalent)



These two setups will cost be about the same (give or take a bit).
Either way, I plan on upgrading to a next generation video card in
2008, either Nvidia or ATI. Obviously, I won't be able to do as much
gaming with the 24" LCD in the meantime, but would getting a 24" and
*settling* for a less powerful video card be worth it? There is
definitely an obvious price difference between the 22" and 24"
displays. As for 24", I have my eyes on the LG L245WP-BN Black 24" 8ms
on Newegg. As for 20" or 22", I really have no clue. :/ Could someone
give me some input or perhaps another setup suggestion? I don't plan to
use this rig just for gaming, but I plan to do a lot of multitasking
and this computer is *hopefully* going to be mainly for school work. The rest of my build will consist of X38 (DDR2 edition), Q6600, and 4GB DDR2 800. Thanks!

all that horse power for "school work"?... as for the monitor and such, get a 24"+ and save your money for the upcomming 9800s due beginning of next year. i currently own a 22" acer running at 16x12 with a 8800gts 320 and everything play great..

 

[asgallant]

I'm trying to decide between the following two setups:



20 or 22" LCD @ 1680x1050 Native resolution + 8800GTX

or

24" LCD @ 1920x1200 Native resolution + X1950XT 256MB (or equivalent)

I heartily recommend the 24" monitor with the lower end graphics card now and upgrading to a better graphics card later. Sure, you'll get better frame rates with the better card and lower resolution, but you'll also get crappy color and poor video playback, especially at the 22" monitor size. If you are planning on upgrading to a next gen card anyway next year, there is little to no reason to not buy the 24" monitor. Suck it up and game with lower framerates (or turn down the res in the game). I run a Samsung 245BW (24" 1920x1200) off of a Geforce 7600GT. My framerates are crap, but everything else is awesome.

The LG L245WP-BN is a fantastic display. You'll be kicking yourself in the butt next year, saying "why or why did I buy the smaller monitor!?!?" when you upgrade to the next gen graphics.

 

[TheGreatGrapeApe]

I agree, get the better monitor/LCD now, and try to get the GF8800GTS, but even if you can't squeeze that in, then get the X1950XT for now, and then upgrade later.

LCD will likely be a one time in about 5 years purchase, might as well get at least 1080P resolution IMO.

Of course if I can, I prefer higher resolution for 2D so I am definitely biased.

 

[prodystopian]

Definitely get the 24". There are very few games you won't be able to run at high resolution with the xt. Also, since you are getting a new graphics card in a few months/ a year, spend the money on the monitor now because you probably won't be replacing that anywhere near as soon.

Also, just to reiterate, the 22" monitors are lower quality than the 20" and 24" counterparts which is why they are significantly cheaper than the 24" and about the same as better quality 20".

Finally, if you are looking for planning to use the monitor for other purposes (watch DVDs, play PS3/360, etc.) you may want to consider the Dell 24" or one of the BenQ fp241w monitors. These have a greater number of inputs and would better serve you for those things. If not, the LG looks like a great monitor.

 

[CompTIA_Rep]

Heck ya. 24in monitors for sure.
DX10 cards are still iffy anyway, so save your money and get a great cheaper DX9 card.


If you do go 22in, get the Gateway 22in (my recommendation). Lots of inputs and nice quality, though the 24in is much better still.